Pros. v. M. Mrkšić et al.: Case Information Sheet - The Hague Justice ...

CASE INFORMATION SHEET"VUKOVAR HOSPITAL" (IT-95-13/1) MRKŠIĆ et al.able to accept the honesty of two of these witnesses or the reliability of the third witness. Hence, forreasons fully set out in the written judgement, the Chamber found that it had not been established by theProsecution that Miroslav Radić had knowledge or reason to know that soldiers under his command hadcommitted crimes at Ovčara.As for the accused Veselin Šljivančanin, the Chamber observed that for reasons expressed when discussingthe responsibility of Mile Mrkšić, the evidence did not establish that Veselin Šljivančanin participated inany joint criminal enterprise as alleged in the Indictment.The indictment alleged that Veselin Šljivančanin was responsible, under Article 7(1) of the Statute, forhaving ordered the commission of the crimes alleged in the indictment. The Chamber found that therewas no evidence to suggest that Veselin Šljivančanin ordered any forces at Ovčara to commit any of theoffences charged in the indictment. Further, the crimes in this case were perpetrated by TerritorialDefence and paramilitary forces. Veselin Šljivančanin had no power of command over those forces. On theevidence, Veselin Šljivančanin could not be held responsible under Article 7(1) of the Statute for havingordered the commission of any of the crimes established in this case. Nor did the evidence establish hisresponsibility under Article 7(3) for having failed to prevent the commission of crimes or to punish theperpetrators.It was the Chamber’s finding that on 20 November 1991, Veselin Šljivančanin exercised commandauthority conferred on him by Mile Mrkšić, over the military police involved in the evacuation of prisonersof war from the hospital and guarding them on the buses and at Ovčara. It was not alleged, nor did theevidence establish, that members of the military police perpetrated any of the crimes in this case. On thecontrary, they were involved, albeit often unsatisfactorily in securing the prisoners of war frommistreatment by the Territorial Defence and paramilitary forces. As the facts of this case revealed, thesecurity provided to the prisoners of war at Ovčara was insufficient. The number of military police troopsat Ovčara was far too low and their performance was at times unsatisfactory, so that for much of the timethe prisoners were exposed to the hostile acts of the Territorial Defence and paramilitary forces who hadgathered at Ovčara. Contrary to Veselin Šljivančanin’s own and other evidence the Chamber found that hewas at Ovčara for a time when mistreatment to the prisoners was occurring. He was thus able to observethe brutal conduct of the Territorial Defence and paramilitary forces and became aware that seriouscrimes were being committed against the prisoners of war. In addition, he knew of past events of thesame nature, in particular of the mistreatment including killings of Croat prisoners of war by local SerbTerritorial Defence and paramilitary forces at Velepromet on the preceding day, as well as of other similarincidents that had taken place in the area of Vukovar in the months of October and November 1991.However, he chose not to resort to any of the measures available to him to seek to prevent what wasoccurring. He failed to discharge the duty of care for the prisoners of war kept in the custody of the JNA,a duty which was imposed on him by the laws of war and which was part of his responsibility as thesecurity organ, and by the specific responsibility placed on him by Mile Mrkšić. Veselin Šljivančanin couldhave sought or ordered additional troops to Ovčara. He could have given orders to the military policepresent there to enhance the protection. He failed to give appropriate orders and take other appropriateaction. This facilitated the continuing mistreatment of prisoners of war and thus the commission of thecrimes of torture and cruel treatment, as it can only have been obvious to him in the circumstances. Forthese reasons, the responsibility of Veselin Šljivančanin, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute, for havingaided and abetted the crimes of torture and cruel treatment had been established.He was not found responsible, however, for having aided and abetted the crime of cruel treatmentcommitted by the imposition of inhumane conditions of detention in the hangar at Ovčara, as theevidence did not demonstrate that Veselin Šljivančanin entered the hangar and was able to observe theconditions of detention in the hangar.The crime of murder was committed during the night after the withdrawal of all JNA military police fromOvčara, pursuant to the order of Mile Mrkšić. By that order, Veselin Šljivančanin necessarily ceased to beresponsible for the security of the prisoners of war, and his command authority in respect of the militarypolice that had provided security came to an end. He was not responsible, therefore, for the murderscommitted by Territorial Defence and paramilitary troops after the JNA military police were withdrawnfrom Ovčara.On 27 September 2007, the Trial Chamber rendered its judgement convicting the accused as follows:Mile Mrkšić, on the basis of individual criminal responsibility (Article 7(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal)with:7